text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
But the second thing I just want to engage is their claim about education being inaccessible within the status quo. The first thing, in reality speaking, this is not correct. In developing nations, environmental education is not solid yet. Feminism education is not solid yet as well. But the second thing is that if it ... |
What we argue here in opening opposition is that the restructuring or the allocation of budget can go into lobbying the government, lobbying companies, for example, in order to give access to green technology or green products, for example, or restructuring the form of education that we give to society—not like what we... |
Something along that line has proven to be effective in Japan, for example, because of the habituation of these types of individuals. And that is the problem: when you shame individuals, you are shaming them out of their ha bi ts—habits that are unchangeable, habits that have been nurtured in them since childhood, for ... |
The third thing I just want to say is that the burden for opening opposition is not to prove that the status quo will suddenly be good. Probably we also approve that, but the main burden is just to prove that opening government is probably wrong and that the status quo will be better. I just want to highlight several t... |
What I mean by this is they never have the feel that the shaming will be conducted well. In this particular case, social activism leadership usually is centralized in one specific region while the smaller part of the movement is spread among small components. I must say this means that the leader in the regional part u... |
What's the problem with this? The extent of shame is unclear. The aim, however, is clear. I agree with the opening government that the aim is to change the behavior of society. What does it mean to happen? Shame is highly connected with the perpetuation of conflict. When you shame individuals, you tell them that they a... |
What's then the problem with this? Number one, the nuance in Omar's argument about unnamed shame is then something that is much easier to comprehend as something that is negative to a general perception of individuals because when you shame a certain individual, you are not learning about their background. This is not ... |
Since this is unblenched, then most likely what occurs is that one person that is closely related to your constituents feels that they are also being shamed, feels that the movement is not actually defending them because it is not something that is relatable for them or somethin g that is proximate for them to eventual... |
But the second thing is also about not protecting the stability internally inside of your own movement because the different perceptions—let's say feminism; feminism has different perceptions internally within their own constituents. Because of that different perception, and because of the continuous shame that you do ... |
But thirdly, why is this important? Because this is directly connected with buy-in from lower-class individuals that are highly connected to developing nations. This is why the nuance of elitism is something that is very easy to eventually buy into this kind of social movement when they continuously shame because they ... |
<poi> |
Why would companies care about what environmental movements have to say? |
</poi> |
Okay, so this nicely ties into my third point. The prerequisite of, quote unquote, companies willing to change is that you are able to create buy-in first. Companies don't care; I totally agree. When you call them out, like calling out Taylor, for example, when the majority of Taylor's fans do not care, they will defen... |
But the prerequisite of changing and the prerequisite of going to create the stock going down is that the majority of people agree with the cause. This suggests that it depends on the analysis of why shame can be effective, and what they prove here is that shaming is ineffective, not only with what Omar says but also b... |
They see the movement as somewhat insensitive enough to think that they do need to go out and work, for example, inside of— in terms of COVID, for example, that i do need to eventually buy plastic because green bags are fucking too expensive and take too much of my paycheck daily, for example. Why not this crucial? Bec... |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
Three response off of my speech. The first is that opening opposition claims social movement has limited forms of capital. I have two responses to this. One, the counterfactual under their model isn't education alone because they, right, you also need to debate how this debate would likely manifest. You need to engage ... |
The second problem I have with opening opposition: first, you need to acknowledge, judge, that don't let them screw away by telling all these people who are shaming are all people from the same community, neighbor to each other and whatnot. You must have a clear line drawn between these two groups. One, these are group... |
The second thing: there won't be buying because you don't understand the circumstance of a person who is against the movement. Why is the owner's of feminist movement to understand patriarchy doing this? Why should Black Lives Matter care about the reason and justifications to why privileged white males do this kind of... |
The first thing: what are the myriads of ways that shaming would look like to a person? When a person throws rubbish on the street, you take a photo and put it on social media. Feminist movement calling out men who are narcissists, painting them as beneficiaries of patriarchy. BLM movement calling out white males; all ... |
This dilutes a large chunk of opening opposition harm given the under-mechanized education mechanism, because when POI just says, "We will do different and other forms of education," in so far there's no clear pathway to victory. You can't just let them say, "Oh, there's more harm than good, so we're good about this." ... |
Secondly, the burden for us to show that this mechanism is catalyzed: why is this likely successful? And here's the debate-winning extension, judge. I'm going to talk to you about the precedent: why law has been a successful form of deterrent. Notice the Austin and Bantam's ideology of sociology that discusses the juri... |
But the second action that this person takes affects the public as a whole. When one person moves during COVID, they are vectors who can spread the disease. These are resentments that other people likely want to deter from happening; that is why we have a better form of buying. When you throw rubbish in a drain, it clo... |
<poi> |
If shaming is so accessible that you want it to be a deterrent, which already, by the way, in OG, that everyone can just take a video of you anytime, won't this garner more backlash? Because people think social media are policing them like a mob rather than what we have on our side, which is more buy-in, because people... |
</poi> |
One, you're not going to simply record people when they do something bad. Obviously, if a grab driver is harassing you, you can show conversation as proof. You see someone throwing rubbish into the sea, you can show someone as proof. There's no incentive for people to waste their time, waste their storage, just to go a... |
The last piece of extension: just why we allow the most for most minority social movements to experience catharsis: public shaming is the only way we're able to give them retribution and reparation. My rights were denied; I wasn't able to do anything. The state failed me, law failed me, but at least I can take action i... |
</mg> |
<mo> |
Um, three, two, one, go. CG is correct. I'm sick and tired of two things in debating. The first is just the assumption that social movements are good just because we say so and are good in and of themselves. And the second is that people buy in just because we all in this debate think they might be right. Just as point... |
The first thing I want to explain is how and why do people shame to eliminate closing government's extension. Obviously, there's a wide variety of examples that could easily get picked up because oppression is a continuum in a vast majority of society, but the vast majority of this tends to be particularly outrageous i... |
And what it therefore means is that—and this is going to be important—my second extension. So it therefore means that the vast majority of people do turn out to some degree. The question is how do government respond? Their response to this is because like the issue with the opening government mac. Is The opening govern... |
Because I think opening opposition is a little bit uncharitable here. Like obviously, if we're shaming Harvey Weinstein, like everyone is like, "Ah, like how dare they?" Do you see? Shame is ineffective. And obviously, if we're shaming Timmy who's like gone to do CO for like a job, then like maybe we lose buy-in. I thi... |
What is the comparative in this debate? Governments understand they want to reduce pressure because shockingly you still need to win swing voters, and things that are broadly horrible tend to be opposed fairly broadly across the voter base. Like, I just don't believe that conservatives are like cool with the abuse of w... |
We're going to admit we won't have 100% efficacy, but we're now going to write in the weighing as to why a marginal change in these structures is more important than a harsh change on an individual. The first is that, to some degree, harm is irreversible. It is difficult to get redress for harms that are already commit... |
The final piece of weighing here is again incredibly simple: social movements have large swings in popularity, and there may not be an ability to continually shame into the future. That is to say, for example, Black Lives Matter was incredibly popular between 2020 and 2022. It made large degrees of shaming decisions, b... |
<poi> |
Be more upset their efforts are discredited and being called out. So how do you create comp? |
</poi> |
I'm really sorry, I really genuinely couldn't hear you. Opening, could you repeat that again but like shout, like scream at me? |
<poi> |
Okay, people will be more upset if their efforts are discredited and if the privileged are not being called out. How do you create...? |
</poi> |
I just don't think this is true. Like, that's just objectively not how social movements work. Like, I was listening to the vast majority of the government case, and they were saying things like, "Ah, you know, like, because oppression still exists, people like give up on you." Like, we are all aware that racism still e... |
The reason for this is that people in the mainstream tend to not realize how structurally racist organizations are because it's more convenient to believe them to be more empathetic if you are actively benefiting from them. A really simple example of this is the Arab Spring, where the vast majority of people who were m... |
The second extension is incredibly simple: sometimes social movements are bad, and this is true. And they like these tend to be significantly worse. What are we talking about there? You know, like the Why you Gay interview? Do you know the guy, Past December? The guy they interviewed ran huge degrees of massively homop... |
Why do these tend to be the areas where this kind of shame happens the most? The first is the reason that the cases there is not a structure in the counterfactual to shame. They tend to be cases where people are innocent. There are two reasons: the first, oppression comes from relations of power; people are able to opp... |
Obviously, what that means is that most structures tend to be ingrained with either cultures or literal policies that promote these ideologies. However, obviously, if there isn't a structure to do so, the vast majority of people are not be in relations of power and therefore don't have the capacity or the incentive to ... |
Second, they have an easier ability to gain mainstream buy-in. It is harder to fight structures of oppression, and so shame is a more effective method when backlash is less likely. Thirdly, generic popular bind: the intersection of different power structures makes it easier to oppress people. The weighing is simple: th... |
Very happy to win proposing opposition. |
</mo> |
<gw> |
I don't think this debate can be won on a negative case in the instance that you don't prove any forms of change within this matter. When you have two government teams clearly telling you why change happens, it is a debate that has to clearly go to the government bench. But the first thing that I want to do is differen... |
I'm going to go more at the point of which you don't overcome a shame threshold of individual things like Pride are things that you can insulate yourself with, which is what CG's extension then is still damaging to OG. The point at which we tell you that this mechanism happens in terms of emotions, at the point of whic... |
I'm going to explain why this is very important when it comes to these particular actors of people at the top who just have the capacity to do so. The second thing then is how do we affect people on the top? I think this is where OG loses because they're not able to answer why the instance of how they can isolate or im... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.